To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

The Official Student Publication Of Bethel College
Volume 69, No. 3; October 8, 1993
My foam cup runneth over: polystyrene versus paper
by Mindy Reinhold
Writing Intern
This fall Market Square switched from
paper based to polystyrene products. Most
noticeable to Market Square consumers
are the new foam cups.
Just what is polystyrene? Why did
Market Square make the switch? And how
does it affect the environment, especially
compared to paper? These are questions
deserving of answers.
According to reports issued by the
Polystyrene Packaging Council, Inc.,
"Polystyrene is a lightweight plastic
composed of hydrogen and carbon atoms."
It is petroleum and natural gas based. Its
foam type is used for a variety of food
packaging items, such as the cups Market
Square now sells.
Marriott Food Service Director Nelson
Hard gave the reasons for his decision to
sell polystyrene products. "Number one,
we looked at the cost and we said, 'Good
grief, we can save a lot of money if we go
to polystyrene.'" Hard explained that
polystyrene is not only cheaper for Marriott
to purchase, it also lowers Bethel's hauling
cost because that cost is based on weight
and polystyrene weighs substantially less
than paper. Bethel's trash hauler, Aagard,
determines the hauling cost according to
the previous year's garbage weight.
Because of the lighter weight of this year's
polystyrene, Managerof Building Services
Ardith Lindahl said that next year's garbage
bill should be lower.
The second aspect Hard examined in his
decision was the ecological soundness of
polystyrene. Hard said he considered
recycling versus landfills. Although in
favor of recycling, he concluded that it
does not make economical sense. While
Bethel's other recycling is done in the
nearby Twin Cities area, polystyrene would
have to be hauled to the Chicago area,
according to Hard. This not only means an
additional hauling cost, but a fuel waste in
transporting as well. "It would add cost
over and above what the school is already
paying for paper hauling," said Hard.
According to Lindahl, the hauling cost is
$320 a ton to recycle polystyrene, but only
$69 a ton to incinerate it.
Other problems with recycling
polystyrene are storage and method, said
Lindahl. Because of its bulky nature it piles
Photo/ H. Larsen
Marriot's switch from paper-based
products to polystyrene ones raises
ecological concerns.
up. It would also need checked disposal
into recycling bins, since sorting and
dumping liquids are necessary
prerequisites. If Bethel can find a way to
recycle polystyrene money-wise and
storage-wise, it will certainly do so,
according to Lindahl. She said that they
willdiscuss recycling with Aagard, Bethel's
trash hauler, in late October.
Aside from recycling difficulties, Hard
considered how incinerating polystyrene
affects the environment. All of the
polystyrene waste is incinerated, along with
Bethel's othertrash, according to Hard and
Lindahl. Not only does polystyrene bum
safely, producing "carbon dioxide, water
vapor and possibly a trace of ash," but it
also aids the incineration process because
of its high BTU value, according to a
Polystyrene Packaging Council, Inc. report.
This, along with the fact that the amount of
residual ash left by incinerating polystyrene
is far less in volume than that which
incinerating paper produces, persuaded
Hard that the incineration alternative was
environmentally acceptable. Even if the
polystyrenecupsweredumpedatalandfill,
which they are not, polystyrene will not
degrade and give out methane and carbon
dioxide which contribute to the greenhouse
effect, according to Hard.
Hard added that by distributing
information at the beginning of the year, "I
wanted people to understand that it wasn't
just a decision made on the spur of the
moment, say, 'O.K. let's go this way.' We
went through the thought process. We did
some investigation. And I feel that we
made the best decision based on [the]
information we had."
The crust of the information Hard refers
to is still available in Market Square on a
large poster in front of the foam cups.
However, others are not as optimistic about
the environmental safety claims this
information contains. Two such people are
Associate Professor of Biology Robert
Kistler and Instructor of Biology Bryan
Anderson.
Both feel that the absolute best choice
would be for everyone to consistently use
their own reusable hard plastic cups. Hard
said that he would not be opposed to having
only reusable cups if the majority of students
made it clear that they prefer this, even
though their choice would be limited to one
size.
Given that Market Square does not have
a reusable-cups-only-system, Kistler said
that foam is better than paperif it is recycled.
Kistler pointed out that foam is a pure
product and can be recycled 100%, whereas
it was impossible to recycle the paper cups
Market Square previously sold because of
their wax coating.
Given that Market Square does not
recycle its polystyrene products, Kistler
and Anderson both prefer paper over plastic,
such as polystyrene. Along with the reasons
that paper takes up less space in a landfill
.'
How does Iowa spell
relief? B-E-T-H-E-L,
see story on page 7.
has the same effect when bumed as does
plastic, and creates relatively the same
amountof pollution, Kistler'smain reason
for preferring paper over plastic is that
paper's resource, trees, is renewable,
whereas plastic's resource, petroleum, is
not. "Very rarely do we talk about the
resource issue. It just doesn't make any
sense to use one-time use of petroleum, and
then it's gone," Kistler said.
Anderson is skeptical of many claims
shown in the poster in Market Square and
in the Polystyrene Packaging Council, Inc.
reports. Fi rst, he said that to say polystyrene
cups are "ozone safe" is an assumption. If,
in fact, CFCs (chlorofiuorocarbons) have
been replaced by HCFCs, a different type,
these HCFCs do substantially reduce the
amount of ozone depletion in manufacturing
polystyrene products—by at least 95%,
according to a Polystyrene Packaging
Council, Inc. report—but they still will
damage the ozone.
Anderson pointed out that to say
incinerating polystyrene is environmentally
safe is false because its end-product, carbon
dioxide, aids the greenhouse effect.
Although incinerating paper also produces
greenhouse gasses, it does not produce
toxic ash problems, which are possible
with plastic, according to Anderson. -
Anderson also doubted the claim that
polystyrene foam food packaging makes
up less than one percent of the total solid
waste stream. In considering claims about
the amount of pollution produced and
energy used in making paper and plastic,
Kistler and Anderson believe that what
specific areas one looks at and how one
measures pollution and energy will shape
one's conclusions. Kistler pointed out that
although foam produces less pollution than
paper does in manufacturing, because no
bleaches are used for foam, oil spills should
also be considered.
Anderson also believes that a wide view
of all the aspects should be taken in order to
arrive at an intelligible conclusion. As far
as he is concerned, plastics are less friendly
to the environment, both in their production
and in their disposal.
ook for our

Reproduction or distribution of these files is permitted for educational and research purposes with proper attribution to the Bethel Digital Library. No commercial reproduction or distribution of these files is permitted under copyright law without the written permission of Bethel University Digital Library. For questions or further information on this collection, contact digital-library@bethel.edu.

Reproduction or distribution of these files is permitted for educational and research purposes with proper attribution to the Bethel Digital Library. No commercial reproduction or distribution of these files is permitted under copyright law without the written permission of Bethel University Digital Library. For questions or further information on this collection, contact digital-library@bethel.edu.

The Official Student Publication Of Bethel College
Volume 69, No. 3; October 8, 1993
My foam cup runneth over: polystyrene versus paper
by Mindy Reinhold
Writing Intern
This fall Market Square switched from
paper based to polystyrene products. Most
noticeable to Market Square consumers
are the new foam cups.
Just what is polystyrene? Why did
Market Square make the switch? And how
does it affect the environment, especially
compared to paper? These are questions
deserving of answers.
According to reports issued by the
Polystyrene Packaging Council, Inc.,
"Polystyrene is a lightweight plastic
composed of hydrogen and carbon atoms."
It is petroleum and natural gas based. Its
foam type is used for a variety of food
packaging items, such as the cups Market
Square now sells.
Marriott Food Service Director Nelson
Hard gave the reasons for his decision to
sell polystyrene products. "Number one,
we looked at the cost and we said, 'Good
grief, we can save a lot of money if we go
to polystyrene.'" Hard explained that
polystyrene is not only cheaper for Marriott
to purchase, it also lowers Bethel's hauling
cost because that cost is based on weight
and polystyrene weighs substantially less
than paper. Bethel's trash hauler, Aagard,
determines the hauling cost according to
the previous year's garbage weight.
Because of the lighter weight of this year's
polystyrene, Managerof Building Services
Ardith Lindahl said that next year's garbage
bill should be lower.
The second aspect Hard examined in his
decision was the ecological soundness of
polystyrene. Hard said he considered
recycling versus landfills. Although in
favor of recycling, he concluded that it
does not make economical sense. While
Bethel's other recycling is done in the
nearby Twin Cities area, polystyrene would
have to be hauled to the Chicago area,
according to Hard. This not only means an
additional hauling cost, but a fuel waste in
transporting as well. "It would add cost
over and above what the school is already
paying for paper hauling," said Hard.
According to Lindahl, the hauling cost is
$320 a ton to recycle polystyrene, but only
$69 a ton to incinerate it.
Other problems with recycling
polystyrene are storage and method, said
Lindahl. Because of its bulky nature it piles
Photo/ H. Larsen
Marriot's switch from paper-based
products to polystyrene ones raises
ecological concerns.
up. It would also need checked disposal
into recycling bins, since sorting and
dumping liquids are necessary
prerequisites. If Bethel can find a way to
recycle polystyrene money-wise and
storage-wise, it will certainly do so,
according to Lindahl. She said that they
willdiscuss recycling with Aagard, Bethel's
trash hauler, in late October.
Aside from recycling difficulties, Hard
considered how incinerating polystyrene
affects the environment. All of the
polystyrene waste is incinerated, along with
Bethel's othertrash, according to Hard and
Lindahl. Not only does polystyrene bum
safely, producing "carbon dioxide, water
vapor and possibly a trace of ash," but it
also aids the incineration process because
of its high BTU value, according to a
Polystyrene Packaging Council, Inc. report.
This, along with the fact that the amount of
residual ash left by incinerating polystyrene
is far less in volume than that which
incinerating paper produces, persuaded
Hard that the incineration alternative was
environmentally acceptable. Even if the
polystyrenecupsweredumpedatalandfill,
which they are not, polystyrene will not
degrade and give out methane and carbon
dioxide which contribute to the greenhouse
effect, according to Hard.
Hard added that by distributing
information at the beginning of the year, "I
wanted people to understand that it wasn't
just a decision made on the spur of the
moment, say, 'O.K. let's go this way.' We
went through the thought process. We did
some investigation. And I feel that we
made the best decision based on [the]
information we had."
The crust of the information Hard refers
to is still available in Market Square on a
large poster in front of the foam cups.
However, others are not as optimistic about
the environmental safety claims this
information contains. Two such people are
Associate Professor of Biology Robert
Kistler and Instructor of Biology Bryan
Anderson.
Both feel that the absolute best choice
would be for everyone to consistently use
their own reusable hard plastic cups. Hard
said that he would not be opposed to having
only reusable cups if the majority of students
made it clear that they prefer this, even
though their choice would be limited to one
size.
Given that Market Square does not have
a reusable-cups-only-system, Kistler said
that foam is better than paperif it is recycled.
Kistler pointed out that foam is a pure
product and can be recycled 100%, whereas
it was impossible to recycle the paper cups
Market Square previously sold because of
their wax coating.
Given that Market Square does not
recycle its polystyrene products, Kistler
and Anderson both prefer paper over plastic,
such as polystyrene. Along with the reasons
that paper takes up less space in a landfill
.'
How does Iowa spell
relief? B-E-T-H-E-L,
see story on page 7.
has the same effect when bumed as does
plastic, and creates relatively the same
amountof pollution, Kistler'smain reason
for preferring paper over plastic is that
paper's resource, trees, is renewable,
whereas plastic's resource, petroleum, is
not. "Very rarely do we talk about the
resource issue. It just doesn't make any
sense to use one-time use of petroleum, and
then it's gone," Kistler said.
Anderson is skeptical of many claims
shown in the poster in Market Square and
in the Polystyrene Packaging Council, Inc.
reports. Fi rst, he said that to say polystyrene
cups are "ozone safe" is an assumption. If,
in fact, CFCs (chlorofiuorocarbons) have
been replaced by HCFCs, a different type,
these HCFCs do substantially reduce the
amount of ozone depletion in manufacturing
polystyrene products—by at least 95%,
according to a Polystyrene Packaging
Council, Inc. report—but they still will
damage the ozone.
Anderson pointed out that to say
incinerating polystyrene is environmentally
safe is false because its end-product, carbon
dioxide, aids the greenhouse effect.
Although incinerating paper also produces
greenhouse gasses, it does not produce
toxic ash problems, which are possible
with plastic, according to Anderson. -
Anderson also doubted the claim that
polystyrene foam food packaging makes
up less than one percent of the total solid
waste stream. In considering claims about
the amount of pollution produced and
energy used in making paper and plastic,
Kistler and Anderson believe that what
specific areas one looks at and how one
measures pollution and energy will shape
one's conclusions. Kistler pointed out that
although foam produces less pollution than
paper does in manufacturing, because no
bleaches are used for foam, oil spills should
also be considered.
Anderson also believes that a wide view
of all the aspects should be taken in order to
arrive at an intelligible conclusion. As far
as he is concerned, plastics are less friendly
to the environment, both in their production
and in their disposal.
ook for our